Slashdot Mirror
Feds Have Access To Cellphone Tracking On Request
Mike writes "According to a Washington Post article, federal officials are routinely asking and getting courts to order cellphone companies to furnish real-time tracking data on subscribers. The data is used to pinpoint the whereabouts of 'criminal suspects', according to judges and industry lawyers. In some cases, judges have granted the requests without even requiring the government to demonstrate probable cause that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime 'Privacy advocates fear such a practice may expose average Americans to a new level of government scrutiny of their daily lives. Such requests run counter to the Justice Department's internal recommendation that federal prosecutors seek warrants based on probable cause to obtain precise location data in private areas. The requests and orders are sealed at the government's request, so it is difficult to know how often the orders are issued or denied.'"
...and in unrelated news, Reynolds America Inc. ( http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RAI ) reported a rise in their stock price following record sales in their aluminium and tin foil divisions.
Every day it's either some government agency or some giant corp that is tightening the screws on US citizens. When will there be a tipping point where Joe Apathetic says "enough!" and takes to the streets? It's alarming that so many people are so docile.
Another reason I prefer not to own a cell phone. Modern ones all have at least rudimentary location tracking built in. With the way the US Govt. abuses powers it shouldn't have, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they will try to exploit it so they can track people "in need of public safety"... because we all know how the average American (and yes, I'm an American citizen, so I'm bashing my own country, not yours) will roll over and play dead anytime the Govt. pulls out the safety card. It's pathetic.
I think we have to realize that a surveillance society is an inevitable consequence of surveillance capability. If anything, history should show us that when groups of people are granted powers over other groups, they tend to abuse them (see the "Stanford Prison Experiment" for psychological evidence). Thus, any monitoring, surveillance, or other oppressive capabilities, are likely to be realized. As technology removes the barriers to total surveillance, in terms of both the monitoring itself, as well as information processing, I do not see any option rather than for a total surveillance society to emerge.
Call me paranoid, but I still think that the above is a rational assessment given historical evidence.
...and this was done under the guise of "So 911 can find you!"
Signature applied for, Patent Pending
I'm normally the first to whine, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that Judges are required. Isn't that how we want surveillance to work?
There is an element of truth to this. The practical effect of this is to spread fear and apprehension among "innocent nobodies" who happen to be paying attention. The myth of government omniscience (and, by extension, omnipotence) is a powerful tool of preemptive social control.
It's like torture. Newsflash: the people who torture know it doesn't really "work" on (i.e., produce valuable information from) the victims. It's a form of state terrorism -- it works best on the rest of us.
Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
Good. It's about time they weed out the criminally stupid.
What moron doesn't know they can buy a throw away cell from Walmarts for cash?
If you're dumb enough to be a crook AND use a traceable (i.e. contracted) cell phone you deserve what you get.
I *just* heard a news story about this a day or so ago- take it seriously!
A car was stolen by three guys, and the guys rammed a police car during the chase.
The police opened fire on the vehicle, killing the driver. They also wounded one of two other guys in the car who bailed and ran off into the night.
Here's the part that made me take notice: The news guy said that by using the cellphone number of the driver, they located and captured the other two guys within 20 minutes... by using location tracking of the fugitive's cellphones.
Considering that a) the driver was dead and b) they didn't know who the other two guys were when they bailed out of the car and took off, 20 minutes seemed awfully fast. But how can you track down a cell phone's location without knowing the number or who the owner is?
This means (obviously) that there must be an easily accessible database tracking both caller history (to find out who you called, or called you) AND those people's current locations. I knew things like this were in place for DHS and the FBI (a lot of bank robbers get caught because they have cell phones on them or in their cars), but that local LE had access to this stuff was a surprise.
That means that you and I, joe geek guy, are already in this thing.
Pretty cool, huh? It's *way* too late for tinfoil.
You are correct. GPS only makes it easier and more accurate to locate a phone. The location services provided by phones and carriers are *intended* for consumer applications (e.g., all those GPS applications your wireless company is willing to sell you) and emergency/911 calls.
At least for the commercial applications, the software is designed to require a response from the phone saying in effect "Yes, you can determine my location at this time". The software will then use the GPS in the phone (if it is installed and turned on) or triangulation using the cell towers nearest the phone to determine your location.
The software is not in and of itself bad - recently it was used to locate a mother and child attending a concert to let them know that a transplant donor had been located for the child and to get to the hospital. The issue is more that courts are approving the government's requests without requiring the government to demonstrate probable cause that a crime is taking place. This increases the potential for abusing the process.
Never let reality temper imagination
Never let reality temper imagination
As a radical drug-dealing terrorist pedophile, I have to disagree.
And you seriously think this is different anywhere else? Western European nations, for example, were routinely tapping phone conversations of their own citizens behind the iron curtain, without probable cause or any other justification and nobody even raised much of an eyebrow about it. In the US, people at least make a fuss about it.
I feel like privacy issues are incredibly important... and that I'm the only one who feels this way. Well, me and my friends who read slashdot. And the four libertarians I know.
The government only does this stuff because they feel like they can get away with it, that's what kills me.
spacefem.com
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
It does not on GSM (dunno about American specific tech).
GSM needs to keep track of phone locations very precisely because the primary means of synchronising the phone to the network is by altering the timing advance which tells the phone when to start transmitting.
3G is nowhere near to GSM in terms of location precision. In uses reflected signals in a positive feedback filter to improve the phone signal to noise ratio. If you look at the data before the filter you cannot make sense of it (it is combined with the rest of signal processing). If you look at the data after the filter you no longer have a true measurement of the signal produced by the phone. You have a measurement of a function of that signal combined with all reflections. As a result you no longer have the same precision on the measurement of time between the phone and the radio access network as in GSM. From there on you can no longer determine the phone locations as precisely.
So I would not be surprised that the drive to bundle GPS in newer phones has something to do with it. For the older ones (especially GSM) it was totally unnecessary. You could get their location down to a meter in some places.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
A rubber-stamp judge slows things down for no useful purpose. You might as well just let the FBI write their own warrants.
A real judge that does his job will slow things down to make sure only people who really should be under surveillance are put under surveillance.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Hey now, don't raise a voice of reason just yet. It is too early in the thread. If you point something insightful like this out, you might deny someone the chance for a mindless rant and bashing session. They might explode!
Do you want to be know as the guy who made someone explode? Somebody do humanity a favor and mod this down for another ten minute or so.
If you didn't get the tongue in cheek there, Good point.